February 2019

Theology of Hope Re-Imagined – From Politics to Technology

In part 1, I introduced Moltmann’s theology of hope and its origins. In part 2, I explored one of its main offshoots, theology of liberation. There, I also posed the question whether the avenue for liberation may be shifting from politics to technology. In this blog, I will probe this question further by showing the growing global impact of technocapitalism in our time.

What is Technology?

Ever since the first human chiseled a rock to make a tool, we have been in the business of developing and using technology. Recently, technology has come to mean digital gadgets. Yet in a broader sense, technology is much more than that. Every time we extend ourselves into nature’s resources to accomplish a task, we are using technology. Therefore, it is an inescapable part of our reality as human beings. It is also what separates us from other species.

Technology is not only an integral part of the human experience, but is also infused with purpose and ideology. They possess a telos, an ideal that is shaping us into. Unfortunately, we tend to treat technology as neutral means to an end. This thinking supports an illusion that we can use technology without being transformed by it. As technologies cross into the human body, the boundaries between “natural” and “artificial” become blurry. The extension of ourselves becomes part of ourselves.

Furthermore, technology is also an expression of ourselves. They express social and cultural ideals while also perpetuating beliefs. As technologies advance into every aspect of our lives, we start seeing it as the solution to all of our problems. They are no longer tools for accomplishing tasks but are becoming full-blown solutions to existential questions. You add capitalism to that and now every problem becomes a market for a new gadget or app.

The Rise of Techno-Capitalism

The growing influence of technology companies in the last decade is undeniable. Just think of how many smart phones are sold every day in the world. Yet, the extent and speed of this rise is rarely understood. The animation below illustrates this trajectory by showing how the top ranked global brands have changed in this decade. The fact that only one tech company was in the top 5 in 2010 while now they occupy all five spots is mind boggling.

Late 2010 was when I got my first iPhone. Now, that iPhone 4 is what my kids use for playing music so they can sleep. Yet, the proliferation of smart phones and tablets in this decade is only one piece of the puzzle. Less apparent is how the digital economy has disrupted so many industries such as retail, financial services and automobiles. The impact is so pervasive that in 2017, Forbes declared that all companies are now technology companies. That means, businesses will live and die based on their ability to successfully incorporate emerging technologies into their operations. Data is the new oil and code its most effective drilling technique.

The business avatars are betting that technology will take them to a profitable future. It remains to be seen whether consumers will prove their bets right. Even so, what we are undergoing right now is nothing short of a revolution. One that will likely re-organize how we work, live and play. This becomes even more prescient when one considers the potential that AI (Artificial Intelligence), VR/AR (Virtual/Augmented Reality) and IOT (Internet of Things) bring to the table. This is not just the end of a business cycle but the beginning of a whole new era.

Technology and Politics

With that said, the future promised by Silicon Valley may never materialize. The currents of technological optimism have met a wave of nationalism in politics. While not diametrically opposed, these trends tend to go in opposite directions. The rise of protectionism in trade, restrictive immigration policies and increased geopolitical tensions all threaten the advance of technology which depends on a global ecosystem of collaboration and knowledge sharing.

That’s why, when I say that the avenue of liberation is moving from politics to technology, that does not imply that politics will be inconsequential. It just means that working for change may be less about changing policy and more about creating social technologies of liberation. This work will be political in that it will challenge power structures but they may not flow through the halls of government as they did in the last century.

Furthermore, it means that any vision of liberation that does not take into account the impact of technology is simply inadequate to address our current historical moment. This is where current political movements of the left and the right (in the United States) miss the point. The first remains focused on identity politics while the latter insists on perpetuating an outdated vision of 20th century capitalism. Both fail to address the disruptive yet transformative power of technology.

Hence, a new theological vision of liberation must take an alternative path. It must speak through the left and right political dichotomy while also critically confronting the vision of a technocapitalistic future. This is what I want to address in the next blog.

Theology of Hope Moves South – Latin American Liberation

Moltmann’s theology of hope inspired theologians and clergy globally. In this blog, I explore the emergence of liberation theology.

In this process, the Crucified God became a bridge that revealed a new face of the cross. Jesus was killed as a political prisoner, challenging the political forces of the day, denouncing injustice and standing with the marginalized. Influenced by a Marxist view of history, these priests found in the cross an archetype for working for social justice. The gospel incarnated into the Latin American context as a message of liberation from inequality and racism.

In a previous blog, I introduced Moltmann’s theology of hope and its historical context. In this blog, I will discuss one of its most well-known offshoots, namely, liberation theology. While liberation theology had other influences and has recently expanded into a wide array of theologies, Moltmann’s influence was crucial in its beginning. Here is how the two are inter-connected.

The picture above encapsulates both what liberation theology is and its connection with Moltmann’s theology of hope. On November 16, 1989, Juan Ramon Moreno, Spanish-Salvadoran priest and Jesuit was murdered by Salvadoran government forces for denouncing human right violations in the country. While the soldiers carried his corpse to a room, his body hit a book in a shelf throwing it to the ground, staining it with his blood. This was Father Moreno’s last prophetic act. The book (pictured above) was a Spanish translation of Moltmann’s work “The Crucified God”, part of Moreno’s library and most certainly an important influence in his thought and work as an activist Jesuit priest.

Solidarity with the Poor

One of the key ideas of “the Crucified God” is that God suffered with Christ on the cross. This idea was controversial because it contradicted the understanding of God’s impassibility. In classical theism, God could not suffer because that would suggest vulnerability from an all-powerful being. Yet, even more scandalous was the implication of this idea. Moltmann’s cruciform theology was calling the church to retreat from identifying with the political power of Western culture and instead, align itself with the oppressed. The argument goes as follows: because Jesus identified with the oppressed in the cross and God suffered with him, Christians are called to identify and suffer with those in the margins.

Moltmann’s theological seed of the Crucified God would blossom into a full-blown theology of solidarity with the poor in Latin American soil. It emerged as Latin American Catholic priests reflected on the plight of the poor they were serving in the late 60’s. As they worked to alleviate poverty, they started looking for the roots that created and sustained structural misery for most in the continent. How could they work not only to feed the poor but also to empower them to feed themselves?

Liberation theologians would take the Crucified God a step further. Their innovation was, following the political tenor of Jesus original historical context, to conclude that God had a preference for the poor. This controversial conclusion would both align liberation practitioners with revolutionary movements and be at odds with right-wing military dictatorships and, at times, the Vatican itself. In short, it became a potent political theology speaking truth to power but also legitimizing violent guerilla movements and oppressive leftist regimes.

Liberation Theology’s Impact

Over fifty years after its initial formulation, liberation theology’s (LT) legacy is mixed. On the positive side, LT became a vital theological dialogue partner that no modern theologian could ignore. While many, both in the Protestant and Catholic side, would reject its main claims, they always felt obliged to respond to its challenge. In seminaries all over the world, the writings of Gutierrez, Sobrino and Boff continue to inspire and spark debate. Their influence has become even more prominent with the installation of an Argentine Pope. Francis, while not a liberation theologian per se, certainly has moved concern with the poor to the center of the church’s attention.

Yet, this wide-spread influence does not compare with the witness of its martyrs. The life and story of Archbishop Oscar Romero in Guatemala, Sister Dorothy Stang in Brazil and Juan Ramon Moreno in El Salvador are holy examples of those who took up the cause of the oppressed with their blood. Their example, faith and resolve shall never be forgotten. They belong to the company of the saints of the church that came before them.

Beyond that, LT never took hold in the overall church practice in Latin America. Apart from the still existing base communities, the theology did not make its way into Catholic masses. Furthermore, it did not cross into the Latin American Protestantism, the fastest-growing Christian movement of the last century. In the Latin American church a saying goes that “Liberation theology opted for the poor but the poor opted for Pentecostalism.”

In many aspects, Pentecostalism is the anti-thesis of LT. It seeks instead to align itself with the rich and focus on heavenly matters as opposed to political change. If anything, Pentecostal Christians have often politically aligned with the reactive political forces, the very ones LT sought to overturn. Ironically, the Christian movement has been split into both defending and criticizing Capitalism in the region. This is an unfortunate development as both LT and Pentecostalism have much to learn from each other.

Reformulating Hope and Liberation

In spite of producing admirable martyrs, the power and promise of liberation theology has not materialized in its native land. Yet, its promise as a hope theology, grounded in solidarity with the poor rings even more relevant now than it did in the last century.

The revolutionary spirit of the 60’s relied on the assumption that the most effective way to change society was through political means. As a result, democracies have sprung up all over the world and freedom has increased. Yet, most of these projects are showing signs of decay as the popular vote starts turning them back to authoritarianism. As democracies fail to solve persistent social-economic problems, people start looking for leaders who promise simple solutions to complex problems. Without diminishing the importance of these social movements, maybe the problem was in its initial assumption. Yet, if politics is not the way, what is it then?

As my previous blog title suggests, what if the time has come to re-formulate a theology of hope within a technological context? What if the promise of eschatological hope will not materialize through political action but technological creativity? What if the most consequential force for liberating the oppressed is not policy but social technologies? This is what I want to explore in the next part.

A Theology of Hope in a Technological Age – Introduction

This blogs starts a series on re-visiting a theology of hope in a technological age. For full transparency, I write this as my reflection on the topic progresses. I do this on purpose, in the hope that this reflection is not limited to an isolated individual’s musings but instead can open the way for a dialogue with others. Theology is done best when done in community. In an age of instant global communication, the possibilities for dialogue widen and allow for an in-time collaboration that was simply not possible before. Hence, I invite the reader to enter this not as a passive receiver of information but instead an active participant in this conversation. Feel free to post comments or email me directly through the contact form in the site.

In this first blog, I want to discuss the emergence of a theology of hope in the middle of the last century looking at its most prominent proponent -German theologian Jurgen Moltmann. His seminal work Theologie der Hoffnung [Theology of Hope] in the mid 1960’s would initiate a revolution in academic theology that reverberated through decades to come. Here is how it started.

The Emergence of a Theology of Hope

Each theology engages a particular set of questions which are considered to be crucial to the context of the theologian. To do theology is precisely that: to observe the world and listen to its most perennial questions. Then, in prayerful mediation, under the guidance of the Spirit and in dialogue with their community, to seek out answers emerging from the Christian tradition and practices.

Jurgen Moltmann’s theology emerges from the Post-war experience as the world was taking stock of the horrific atrocities executed by the European powers. One of the questions his world was asking was how could there be a good God in a world where Auchwitz happens? Even seventy years later, this question rings in Western ears challenging the European Christendom projects of the previous centuries. If Christian societies were capable of such cruelty and destruction, what is even the point of upholding the Christian religion as the foundation of our political structures? Furthermore, is Christianity even relevant for individuals in a post-war age or does it belong to the history books? The crisis cast both existential (personal) as corporate (political) doubts on an European Christian identity.

A Passionate/Suffering God

A temptation, then and now, is to relegate religious expression to a privatized individualistic piety. That is, all that matters is me, Jesus and my salvation. As long as my passport to heaven is stamped, I don’t need to engage with worldly affairs. The world is confusing enough and meaningless, let me endure its reality in the weeks and escape to heavenly dreams on the weekend.

Moltmann resists this temptation by taking seriously the suffering in the world. If Christianity is to have a voice in the public square (and in our lives), it must actively engage with the questions people and societies are asking. If our faith inadequately addresses the crisis of our time, then it is no longer useful or pertinent to our time.

He starts by reframing the problem. In one of his shortest books, Open Church, Moltmann sees apathy as the biggest curse of our age:

[Our] one-sided orientation towards accomplishment and success make us melancholic and insensitive. We become incapable of love and incapable of sorrow. We no longer have tears, and we smile only because we are supposed to keep on smiling…We become apathetic, still alive but surely and slowly dying inwardly. (pg 23)

Theology of hope starts and ends with a passionate God. It is important here to recover the original meaning of the word passion. It is not just about energy and zeal but also about suffering. The best example is the Passion of Christ, where we see both an unyielding zeal as well as the resulting suffering Christ goes through. A passionate God means one that is moved by the world suffering, cries with them but also moves to action to answer the cries of humanity.

The End is the Beginning

If every theology has a starting point, theology of hope begins with the end. This is what theologians call an eschatological approach. Eschatology is the study of the last things which has come to mean many different things. Recently, because of evangelical pop culture, eschatology has sadly become synonymous with exhaustive speculation about the end of the world. That is not what Moltmann means by it.

Instead, he is following New Testament scholarship in recovering the centrality of the eschatological hope in the Early church. That is, the fact that the apostles and early Christians believed in an actual installation of God’s kingdom on earth. They believed it to be an imminent event. The point of it was not the destruction of the world but the future vindication of God’s people in view of their present political oppression. Hence, the gospel message, in the First and still in the Twenty-First century, has political implications.

By doing so, Moltmann is joining a chorus of theologians, scholars and some clergy in bringing eschatology from the supernatural realm to the natural world. With time and heavy influence from Greek philosophy, eschatology became focused on the after-life. Instead, they want to correct this notion so that Christians can focus more on the here and now.

Hence, this recovery the eschatological character of early Christianity should translate into present action. While grounded in God’s action, it raises the question of how to live today in a way the reflects that future reality. In short, how do we bring the future liberation of God’s people into the present?

Inspired on Moltmann’s writing, the early 70’s would see the emergence of a Latin American, Catholic version later known as liberation theology. If eschatology is about a political reality, then what would that look like in the context of Latin American poor? This is the topic of part 2.

AI Ethics: Evaluating Google’s Social Impact

I have noticed a shift in the corporate America recently. Moving away from the unapologetic defense of profit making of the late 20th century, corporations are now asking deeper questions on the purpose of their enterprises. Consider how businesses presented themselves in the Super Bowl broadcast this year. Verizon focused on first-responders life-saving work, Microsoft touted its video-game platform for children with disabilities and the Washington Post paid tribute to recently killed journalists. Big business wants to convince us they also have a big heart.

This does not mean that profit is secondary. As long as there is a stock market and earning expectations drive corporate goals, short-term profit will continue to be king. Yet, it is important to acknowledge the change. Companies realize that customers want more than a good bargain. Instead they want to do business with organizations that are doing meaningful work. Moreover, Companies are realizing they are not just autonomous entities but social actors that must contribute to the common good.

Google AI Research Review of 2018

Following this trend, Google AI Review of 2018 focused on how its research is impacting the world for good. The story is impressive, as it reach encompasses many fields of both philanthropy, the environment and technological breakthroughs. I encourage you to look at it for yourself.

Let me just highlight a few developments that are worth mentioning here. The first one is the development of AI ethical principles. In it, Google promise to develop technologies that are beneficial to society, tested for safety and accountable to people. The company also promises to keep privacy embedded in design, uphold highest levels of scientific excellence while also limiting harmful potential uses of their technology. In the latter, they promise to apply a cost-benefit analysis to ensure the risks of harmful uses does not outweigh its benefits.

In the last section, the company explicitly states applications they will not pursue. These include weapons, surveillance and or those that oppose accepted international law and human rights. That last point, I must admit, is quite vague and open to interpretation. With that said, the fact that Google published these principles to the public shows that they recognize their responsibility to uphold the common good.

Furthermore, the company showcases some interesting examples of using AI for social good. The example includes work on flood and earthquake prediction, identifying whales and diseased cassavas and even detecting exoplanets. The company has also allocated over $25M in funds for external social impact work through its foundation.

A Good Start But is that Enough?

In a previous blog, I mentioned how the private sector drives the US AI strategy . This approach definitely raises concerns as profit-ventures may not always align with the public good in their research goals. However, it is encouraging to see a leader in the industry doing serious ethical reflection and engaging in social work.

Yet, Google must do more to fully recognize the role its technologies play in our global society. For one, Google must do a better job in understanding its impact in local economies. While its technologies empower small businesses and individual actors in remote areas, it also upends existing industries and established enterprises. Is Google paying attention to those in the losing side of its technologies? If so, how are they planning to help them re-invent themselves?

Furthermore, if Google is to exemplify a business with a social conscience does it have appropriate feedback channels for its billions of customers? Given its size and monopoly of the search engine industry, can it really be kept accountable on its own? The company should not only strive for transparency in its practice but also listen to its customers more attentively.

Technology, Business and Society

The relationship between business and society is being revolutionized through the advance of emerging technologies such as AI. In the example of Google, being the search engine leader makes them the primary knowledge gate-keeper for the Internet. As humans come to rely more on the Internet as an extension of their brain, this places Google in a role equivalent to what religious, educational and political leaders played in the past. This is too important a function to be centralized in one profit-making organization.

To be fair, this was not a compulsory process. It is not that Google took over our brains by force, we willingly gave them this power. Therefore, change is contingent not only in the corporation but in its customers. From a practical standpoint, that may mean skipping that urge to “google things”. We might try different search engines or even crack open a book to seek the information we need. We should also seek alternative ways to finding things in the Internet. That may mean looking at resource sites, social platforms and other alternatives. These efforts may at first make life more complicated but over the long run it will safeguard us from an inordinate dependence on a company.

The technologies developed by Google are a blessing (albeit one that we pay for) to the world. We should leverage them for human flourishing regardless of the company’s intended focus. For that to happen, we the people, must take stock of our own interaction with them . The more responsibly we use it, the more we insure that they remain what they are really meant to be: gifts to humanity.

Month: February 2019